If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

No announcement yet.

25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

Comment

There's always a chance, for sure, lol. That's the kind of positive thinking that keeps the human-race plodding along. If there were no chances, there'd be no hope.

That being said, it's a gulf of difference between possible and probable.

I think it's possible that Scotland is home to a family of plesiosaurs that have evaded detection for thousands upon thousands of years, but I do not think it's probable.

I also think that it's possible that a man called Spring-Heeled Jack really did visit my old street back in the 1800's, jumping across the rooftops and blowing fire out of his mouth, but I do not think it's probable.

I think Justin Bieber could win a Nobel prize for his ground-breaking studies into curing blindness, but I do not think that it is at all probable.

By your own admission much more detective work is needed, more handwriting samples, James's whereabouts, provenance etc

IF more info were to materialise would your probability view change?

Comment

"Spreads mayhem" is one of the biggies for me. I'd strongly contend that the diarist is using the phrase in a rather modern sense of "spreading chaos/confusion"; however, "mayhem" was, until about the middle of the 20th century, almost exclusively used to mean "injury". The meaning seems to have flipped in the middle of the 20th century when sports commentators reported on general carnage and confusion on the field of play. The (physical) carnage morphed into the (metaphorical) confusion, and the definition of "mayhem" in the popular imagination changed.

Tellingly, the phrases "spread/spreads/spreading mayhem" just never turn up in publication I've found before the late 1960s. Hardly surprising, since, taking the earlier definition of "mayhem = injury", the concept of "spreading injury" makes very little sense; it takes the new coinage of "mayhem = confusion" to make sense of the phrase.

Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

Comment

"Spreads mayhem" is one of the biggies for me. I'd strongly contend that the diarist is using the phrase in a rather modern sense of "spreading chaos/confusion"; however, "mayhem" was, until about the middle of the 20th century, almost exclusively used to mean "injury". The meaning seems to have flipped in the middle of the 20th century when sports commentators reported on general carnage and confusion on the field of play. The (physical) carnage morphed into the (metaphorical) confusion, and the definition of "mayhem" in the popular imagination changed.

Tellingly, the phrases "spread/spreads/spreading mayhem" just never turn up in publication I've found before the late 1960s. Hardly surprising, since, taking the earlier definition of "mayhem = injury", the concept of "spreading injury" makes very little sense; it takes the new coinage of "mayhem = confusion" to make sense of the phrase.

Doesn't the word mayhem come from the old French, or Anglo-Norman, word "mahaim", meaning mutilation, or the crime of maiming?

"Violent or extreme disorder" to be precise, which is still "violent or extreme" (sorry if that sounds circular), whereas the sense in which we use it today - and the way the diary appears to use it - is far milder; just a few notches up from "stirring things up", "causing a kerfuffle" or "causing chaos".

With due respect to the dictionary, I'd suggest that "violent/extreme disorder" isn't the precise modern usage in any case. Consider "I went to the New Year sales today, and it was mayhem out there" - is that describing violent or extreme disorder, or is it describing a chaotic situation? It looks very much like the latter to me.

Besides, as I've stated, the phrase "spread/spreads/spreading mayhem" just does not turn up in any document I've found prior to the late 1960s.

Comment

I honestly just find it weird that you're like well, it's possible, that's good enough for me.

For anyone truly looking at the whole saga, it shouldn't really add up, and along with the other notable issues, should set alarm bells ringing.

It kind of reminds me of that line from Dumb & Dumber were Mary Swanson tells Lloyd the chances of them being together are more like one in a million, and Lloyd says: so you're tellin' me there's a chance?!

The situation can't be put any plainer JG.

The thing is, both the believers in Maybrick being Jack The Ripper, and those believing it to be an "old" hoax, are far too entrenched in their beliefs to change their ways. Some I suspect have a vested interest in those beliefs. I do not think that the book being discussed in this thread will be the last book to be written with regard to the Maybrick Diary.

I accept that the individuals described above, are entitled to use the same argument when questioning we who realise that the Diary is a modern hoax. However, looking at all the evidence I believe we have the upper hand by some distance. I can't see any change though in the foreseeable future. I believe the subject to be the ultimate stalemate.

It would be interesting to see the outcome of a poll on the subject, where not only Casebook members are allowed to vote, but also individuals who follow these threads, of which there are many.

Comment

The outcome will be that anyone whoís actually interested in the diary, for whatever reason, will be able to read a thread that may actually be informative & surely thatís beneficial to everyone?

A fine sentiment, Hannibal, but with something as controversial as the diary, there will be strong opinions from both sides of the argument, and from those sitting on the fence (like Paul Begg and his piles).

Comment

Maybe only people who are actually interested in the diary should post on this thread. Or any other diary thread.

Instead of people saying itís an obvious forgery, itís full of errors, Maybrickís not a serious suspect etc etc.

If you think itís a fake, donít read the thread or post anything, which will save us all a lot of time.

Otherwise it just falls into the sarcastic Ďyou canít really still believe this is real?í type of post which doesnít benefit anyone.

The outcome will be that anyone whoís actually interested in the diary, for whatever reason, will be able to read a thread that may actually be informative & surely thatís beneficial to everyone?

HERE HERE!!

Many of these naysayers don't even have full evidence at their disposal ... and are using so called 'proof' which is flimsy to say the least (handwriting of James for example).

Anyway, its all fun and games.. I'll carry on being open minded about it all!

MUCH more detective work is needed. Theres real EVIDENCE out there thats yet to be discovered, I'm damn sure!

It is quite true that some books are missing. It is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing much that is mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell them more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as all the household effects were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial"

Comment

Many of these naysayers don't even have full evidence at their disposal ... and are using so called 'proof' which is flimsy to say the least (handwriting of James for example).

Anyway, its all fun and games.. I'll carry on being open minded about it all!

MUCH more detective work is needed. Theres real EVIDENCE out there thats yet to be discovered, I'm damn sure!

Lol...I'll overlook the continued abuse of the word "proof" to point out that there is far more evidence that it's a forgery than there is evidence that it's authentic. There is literally zero evidence that points to it being real and several pieces of evidence that points to it being a fake.

There is not a single compelling piece of evidence that points to it being genuine. Period. This is not a case where both sides have a compelling argument and evidence.